Obamagalomania:hp6sa: Rants aside, it is kind of amusing that Santelli had predicted about 10 months ago that the Dept of Labor would release unemployment numbers just below 8% right before the election... which came true.

This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

And two tacos from Jack in the Box have been $.99 for as long as I can remember, clearly there is no inflation.

I also like how the unemployment rate has been trending down for the last two years but it's a fraud that the trend continued down to some artificially declared point. The interview/screaming match just goes to prove that Rick had absolutely no proof of the "fraud." He provided no evidence, just a feeling. Well those of us that live outside of the GOP echo chamber over here in reality, require some sort of evidence before we even entertain wild ass conspiracy theories.

Satanic_Hamster:Pumpernickel bread: Here goes. Can't make a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate unless you are producing more than 200k jobs a month for an extended period of time. Obviously, we haven't done that, so the dip in unemployment is illusory and not reflective of real improvement in the labor market.

The question is - was this number manufactured to sway the election. Don't know, but it is certainly possible. To get that number, didn't they make large upward revisions to the previous few months? Assuming error in the original estimates are random, we would expect a distribution of errors. Some estimates higher than actual and some lower. Some estimates slightly off the mark, and some way off. That all the adjustments were somewhat large and upward looks suspicious.

Obamagalomania:This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

Core CPI, which is used to measure the most widely published inflation data, does not include gasoline or food. So the inflation figures we see really aren't a very good indication of how much our overall cost of living has increased, since for many, food and gas make up a substantial amount of their spending.

1) Obama admin lies2) GOP: it's a conspiracy3) Liberal media/ Fark: calling this a conspiracy is ridiculous. The GOP is just playing politics right before an election.4) GOP: we found all this evidence of a conspiracy5) Liberal Media/ Fark/ Dems/ Obama Admin: Oh shiate6) Hillary Clinton: I take the blame for those lies. (ok, in this case it would be a different scapego-, er-, secretary, but you get the point)

you got caught again, dems. you coulda gone with 8.0 or 7.9, but you got greedy. gonna be hard to defend 7.8%. That's too big a jump, no matter how you manipulate the numbers.

jst3p:SlothB77: This is going to go the same way the Benghazi thing went:

1) Obama admin lies2) GOP: it's a conspiracy3) Liberal media/ Fark: calling this a conspiracy is ridiculous. The GOP is just playing politics right before an election.4) GOP: we found all this evidence of a conspiracy5) Liberal Media/ Fark/ Dems/ Obama Admin: Oh shiate6) Hillary Clinton: I take the blame for those lies. (ok, in this case it would be a different scapego-, er-, secretary, but you get the point)

you got caught again, dems. you coulda gone with 8.0 or 7.9, but you got greedy. gonna be hard to defend 7.8%. That's too big a jump, no matter how you manipulate the numbers.

Atomic Spunk:Obamagalomania:This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

Core CPI, which is used to measure the most widely published inflation data, does not include gasoline or food. So the inflation figures we see really aren't a very good indication of how much our overall cost of living has increased, since for many, food and gas make up a substantial amount of their spending.

max_pooper:Obamagalomania: hp6sa: Rants aside, it is kind of amusing that Santelli had predicted about 10 months ago that the Dept of Labor would release unemployment numbers just below 8% right before the election... which came true.

This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

And two tacos from Jack in the Box have been $.99 for as long as I can remember, clearly there is no inflation.

I also like how the unemployment rate has been trending down for the last two years but it's a fraud that the trend continued down to some artificially declared point. The interview/screaming match just goes to prove that Rick had absolutely no proof of the "fraud." He provided no evidence, just a feeling. Well those of us that live outside of the GOP echo chamber over here in reality, require some sort of evidence before we even entertain wild ass conspiracy theories.

mcreadyblue:Atomic Spunk: Obamagalomania:This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

Core CPI, which is used to measure the most widely published inflation data, does not include gasoline or food. So the inflation figures we see really aren't a very good indication of how much our overall cost of living has increased, since for many, food and gas make up a substantial amount of their spending.

CPI-W is used for SS COLAs.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought 1.7% looked fairly reasonable if it didn't include gas or food. But now...well, I don't know.

Obamagalomania:hp6sa: Rants aside, it is kind of amusing that Santelli had predicted about 10 months ago that the Dept of Labor would release unemployment numbers just below 8% right before the election... which came true.

This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

I guess if you're a buddy and received a federal solar panel loan that you don't need to repay, it's been a great four years. Not so much for everyone else

Fark you, you liar. I started tracking my gas mileage (and cost) in summer 2008. The average I paid for a gallon of gas in summer 2008 was 3.626. The average I paid for a gallon of gas in summer 2012 was 3.569. There was a six-month crater in gas prices right at the Bush/Obama changeover. It had nothing to do with Bush's policies lowering the cost of gas (they didn't--prices rose steadily during his time in office), it had to do with WORLD WIDE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE destroying demand.

Atomic Spunk:mcreadyblue: Atomic Spunk: Obamagalomania:This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

Core CPI, which is used to measure the most widely published inflation data, does not include gasoline or food. So the inflation figures we see really aren't a very good indication of how much our overall cost of living has increased, since for many, food and gas make up a substantial amount of their spending.

CPI-W is used for SS COLAs.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought 1.7% looked fairly reasonable if it didn't include gas or food. But now...well, I don't know.

This. The difference in style (and substance) between Bloomberg and CNBC is stark. Heck, even Bloomberg radio vs. CNBC (on SiriusXM, the CNBC channel is the audio from the channel) reveals very, very different tones and styles. I think of CNBC like a tabloid for business news. Short interviews, always trying to BS to come up with reasons why the market is up or down on a particular day, etc. Bloomberg can be quite dry at times, but I prefer it that way when the alternative is like tabloid business news for hyperactive children.

If you watch the video you can see why Rick is losing his cool. The essence of his statement is: I told you it would be under 8%. And it is under 8%. You can "connect the dots" and figure out how it happened.

---Personally I think it is funny how a state was excluded from the data because they didn't report. My money is they forgot to include California in the numbers.

Santelli's point (from what I could gather) was that of course the number were trending lower than 8% due to the % of unemployed dropping...as people dropped out of the work force the unemployed (as it is counted by people taking unemployment benefits) gets smaller even though over-all jobs remain static.

that means you get a more favorable unemployment number which isn't a totality, rather a ratio based on two numbers...one of which is based on those taking unemployment insurance benefits not simply "those without a job and the ability to work".

That number is broader and well above 8%.

People can pick from any of the indexes I suppose to make a point. But only the broader numbers give you a real picture of the state we're in.

Even better is to start breaking it down by geography. I'm sure all of that is out there...down to a town/town and even street by street level view if you want.

Santelli is pissed because of the dumb look on all of their faces. "Well Rick hurrr durr why don't you duur hurr durr tell us why it is under 8%?"

"Because the numbers have been trending towards under 8% for months....this is simply reading the data"

SomeoneDumb:I gave up on watching CNBC or listening to or respecting Rick's opinion after his famous Tea Party rant that started this whole business.

/Bloomberg FTW

//Waiting for Emily Chang's return

If Paulson had just admitted up front that it was too much of a disaster to trust the market (which was unlikely in any case, because the idiot believed markets could rationally handle anything - you'd think a former investment guy would know a thing about the thundering herd and greed) this could have been blunted. Not prevented entirely (that's impossible) but Bush would've left with much better numbers and the first bailout would probably have been the only bailout.

The problem is that it would've proved that the markets are not perfect, and that the government (and annoyingly enough for them, regulation) is needed. The simplest thing to fix the problem would've been an immediate infusion of bailout cash not to banks directly, but applied to the loans - and done in such a manner that it have everyone a YEAR off of payments while keeping investors happy because they didn't own garbage, AIG out of trouble because they wouldn't need to pay out big bucks right away, and so on.

The only losers at that point would've been the investment houses because CDS' would have become (and still need) a very regulated transaction. Oh, the banks and investors would lose a little, because principle would have been adjusted down a fixed percentage: I think my former Econ prof was talking 10%, and payments rearranged for a lower monthly payment (but longer term), and all at fixes rates (ARM's changed to fixed) for the mortgage holder. Was it perfect? No. The benefit was that the only people that took it in the a$$ was the quants on Wall Street. Everyone else shared the pain a little, but no one destroyed utterly.

The problem being: that would have required strong leadership that was willing to believe government could help. Paulson was the wrong guy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Bush was the wrong president on watch for this. Not that they were evil about this, but that their philosophy was the wrong one to have during the meltdown. Kind of like Hoover, no real malice, just incapable of letting go of the philosophy.

As for Rick "bailouts for Wall St, but not for People" Santelli: he should count himself lucky more people don't understand this or he'd have been in trouble for his idiocy rather than making money off it.

RminusQ:Obamagalomania: hp6sa: Rants aside, it is kind of amusing that Santelli had predicted about 10 months ago that the Dept of Labor would release unemployment numbers just below 8% right before the election... which came true.

This regime also claims inflation is 1.7% as evidenced by the new COLA for SS. Never mind that gasoline costs have doubled in less than 4 years...

I guess if you're a buddy and received a federal solar panel loan that you don't need to repay, it's been a great four years. Not so much for everyone else

Fark you, you liar. I started tracking my gas mileage (and cost) in summer 2008. The average I paid for a gallon of gas in summer 2008 was 3.626. The average I paid for a gallon of gas in summer 2012 was 3.569. There was a six-month crater in gas prices right at the Bush/Obama changeover. It had nothing to do with Bush's policies lowering the cost of gas (they didn't--prices rose steadily during his time in office), it had to do with WORLD WIDE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE destroying demand.

I recall very clearly when I moved to Chicago in August 2008, the gas prices were hovering around $4.00/gallon, but a little higher if I recall correctly. Today it is right around $$.00/gallon and has been trending downward over the past 2 weeks (due to a pipeline coming back on-line, IIRC). Everything else has risen with inflation, but gas prices haven't changed overall. They just swing more wildly now then they did 15 years ago.

Atomic Spunk:twat_waffle:Wait... The CPI-W includes food and energy costs?

Apparently so. I learned something new today.

"Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)."